Moon Landings Faked? (and all other space mission fakery)

[Mee_n_Mac]

Just to set the record straight ...

Every single Apollo mission coincided with MAJOR SOLAR FLARES, (except 16) and can be verified at the NGDC link I've left on this thread several times now.

As for the so what:

Jay Windley at Clavius:

"The records also show that no major solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions, but the conspiracists don't care to look that closely. The impressively large number is all they're interested in."

It seems Yuri is in complete disagreement with liar Jay Windley. Or maybe Jay isn't a liar, but an apollo fanboy who doen't care to look that closely at the records for MAJOR SOLAR FLARES clearly listed in the comprehensive flare index at the NGDC!

So again you hide behind the word "major". Alas you fail to explain how "major" to an scientist interested in atmospheric disturbances relates to dangerous for astronauts. I've asked for the hard numbers re: X-rays but you won't, and I suspect can't, supply them despite "8 years" of studying radiation. OK, riiiight. :?

ps - Let's pretend Windley is wrong. That still leaves you having to prove the radiation hazard was insurmountable and that deadly flares (and more importantly SEPs) happened during the missions. Disproving Windley (not that you've even done that) doesn't equate to making your case.

BTW, for those of you who keep quoting Van Allen, I suggest you listen to him in his own words, back when he had made his original assessment of the belts, named after him!

Skip to 8:11 to hear Van Allen himself. Watch the entire video, or series of videos to completely awaken from your Apollo Fairy Tales! If you cannot watch the video, I suggest you go back to work, and watch it unblocked from your home computer. If getting on the internet and posting nonsense is your job, ask your boss to unblock YouTube already!

I did listen to JVA. What did he say ? Paraphrasing he found intense radiation, 1000 times the background cosmic levels. OK, we already know that. What does that prove ? Nothing. Go back to the quotes from him I already provided above. Despite high levels, even deadly levels at the worst points in the VABs, he thought astronauts could go through the VABs. Geeesh, nothing like appealing to an authority and then having him disprove your very point (and those quotes were from the 50's, before he was "gotten to" :lol: )

But wait I did more ... I suppressed my laughter and listened to R Rene. He misinterprets (and I'm being kind) the Explorer 4 Geiger counter data. He asserts (with no backup other than misusing data present in the March 1959 issue of Scientific American) that when the unshielded GC went above some "red line" it meant that the levels measured then and there were immediately deadly. He was of course wrong. (people wanting to peruse that data can find a graph, Fig 10, here) But let's pretend he wasn't. He then completely blows it by claiming the Apollo astronauts would be exposed to these levels for a whole hour during their passage through the VABs. Again just plain stupidly wrong. The actual flight path taken only puts the spacecraft through an edge of a high intensity region for minutes. And what did JVA say about the highest regions ....

"He could say with assurance that a human satellite crew exposed to maximum Van Allen radiation for a few days would surely die."

That's days, not hours nor minutes, as Rene tries to assert. And again (from my links above) JVA says ...

"The crew of an outbound spaceship need not worry about the radiation belt. If moving fast enough to leave the earth, they would pass through it in about 20 minutes."

I note that that doesn't imply passage through the most intense regions would take 20 minutes.

But wait I did even more ! I suppressed my gag reflex and listened to Jarrah White then basically make the same mistake Rene did. He equates a maximum dose rate to the actual dose rate and presumes that it holds for the whole time passing through all of the VABs (not just the high rad parts). Even worse he shows a page from a JVA article re: the max radiation levels (which he equates to dose rates ) but then ignores what JVA has to say about spaceflight through the VABs which is at the bottom of the very page he shows !! The part where JVA states "manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation free zone over {the polar regions}".

Needless to say if you can look at this picture of our star in the atmosphere-free lunar sky:

and then have the audacity to try and convince anyone that picture is for real....Well, you should leave Space.com immediately, before you bring down the collective member IQ count along with your own!

But it has "spokes" and everything !!!! :?

Oh yeah....Big thanks to yuri for outing both the Apollo document linked here, as well as ,Jay Windley, Phil Plait, and any other person ignorant of the fact of MAJOR SOLAR FLARES having occurred during Apollo missions.

Alas we'll never see you defend your baseless assertion that any such flares were dangerous or that any were accompanied by a release of energetic particles (which is the real hazard).

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Just a note; Quantum11 no longer frequents the SDC boards.

I'm sure that was his intention from the start. It's easier to get tossed off a board than having to defend baseless assertions with demonstrable logic and facts. Plus I'm sure he's crying "I'm being suppressed" and enjoying it.

I guess we'll never know what he found so wrong in those pictures of the Sun.

 

[uberhund]

I want the six minutes of my life back spent reading his posts

 

[origin]

well he certainly was passionate

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

To believe that so many people could be involved on a conspiracy on such a massive scale is nothing short of delusional. It defies logic to engage in these conspiracy theories which haven't a leg to stand on.

I don't think this is quite over yet though, I'm sure cosmored will come along and cite his "fortress" of evidence on page 16! :lol:

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

I don't think this is quite over yet though, I'm sure cosmored will come along and cite his "fortress" of evidence on page 16! :lol:

Yup and all while ignoring any arguments counter to his "evidence". All the HBs seem to practice the Gish Gallop method of "debate". It's the same crap that passes for political "debate" these days. They don't want to find a method to find the truth, they want to play the "he said, she said" game. I asked cosmored early how to resolve the Chinese flag issue. Still got no answer.

EDIT : BTW cosmored's 1'st point in his list is the Apollo 15 flag movement where it's claimed the flag is moving because air pushed it. Here's an interesting analysis of the situation that says it's because the astronaut brushed against it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbJvgqoeFSU[/youtube]

{personally I'd have been more professional, less mouthy but that analysis stands on it's own}

Now I can already anticipate the JW Flags Alive pt3 video response ... alas the method used therein is faulty. But let's cross that bridge when it comes up.

 

[cosmored]

cosmored wrote:There's a partial summary of hoax evidence on page 16 of this thread. I't the 13th post from the top. Once people have seen the evidence, there's really nothing you pro-Apollo people can do to make them think they really went to the moon. The evidence is just too clear.

--------------------

No, it's not. That "evidence" has already been ripped to shreds multiple times. Do you have anything new to bring to the table or are you just going to keep bragging about your sumary on page 16?

I've never seen it torn to shreds. I've seen people try to obfuscate it and then consider it to have been torn to shreds.

A perfect example is the flag moving without having been touched.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y

This video shows that it started moving before the astronaut got close enough to touch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... orses&aq=f
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... Alive&aq=f

You people have the attitude that you've debunked this but that's all it is–an attitude. You haven't come close to debunking this. This piece of evidence proves the hoax by itself.

 

[kk434]

One thing that REALLY bothers me are the lost tapes from apollo 11, we only got the very grainy video from a tv camera in the controll room. How is it possible to lose something that important???? I thought that it would be protected at least as the decleration of independence (imagine that one getting lost! ! !). Stuff like that fuels the conspiracy theorists as one can imagine that they where destroyed on purpose to hide the evidence of the hoax.

 

[Archer17]

...A perfect example is the flag moving without having been touched.[snip]...You people have the attitude that you've debunked this but that's all it is–an attitude. You haven't come close to debunking this. This piece of evidence proves the hoax by itself.

Afraid not. Hell, one of the comments posted below the first video nailed it. The movement is electrostatic. Look at the video again - the flag moves towards the astronaut.

 

[MeteorWayne]

cosmored,
Have you ever had an original thought of your own? Or can you only copy the same ignorant, stupid links that you have dozens of times before, all of which have been shown to be worthless?

 

[darkmatter4brains]

I guess he's not around anymore to answer the qeustion for himself, but did quantum ever say WHY NASA would have faked a moon landing?

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

I guess he's not around anymore to answer the qeustion for himself, but did quantum ever say WHY NASA would have faked a moon landing?

I would assume to get ahead of the russians. But then he said that the russians were cooperating with NASA to pull off this stunt, and you can't expect us to believe that.

These people have no appreciation for the tremendous amount of work this took by so many people on such a huge scale. You just couldn't fake something like this, it's prepostrous.

 

[darkmatter4brains]

I guess he's not around anymore to answer the qeustion for himself, but did quantum ever say WHY NASA would have faked a moon landing?

I would assume to get ahead of the russians. But then he said that the russians were cooperating with NASA to pull off this stunt, and you can't expect us to believe that.

These people have no appreciation for the tremendous amount of work this took by so many people on such a huge scale. You just couldn't fake something like this, it's prepostrous.

It does seem like there would be quite the conspiracy story to go along with all this!! :lol:

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Just to inject a piece of data re: flares into this topic ...

From a recent article here on SDC

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/s ... 00910.html

But this flare, while impressive, was aimed away from our planet, NASA officials said.

"The eruption also hurled a bright coronal mass ejection into space," they added. "The eruption was not directed toward any planets."

Coronal mass ejections are huge eruptions of plasma and ionized atoms into space.

When aimed at Earth, the solar particles stream down the planet's magnetic field lines toward the poles. Severe solar flare events can cripple satellites and have the potential to knock out power grids on Earth.


So it was previously pointed out that flares, or more properly the particle emissions some may produce, are directional. Not every flare produces energetic particles headed towards the Earth and any spacecraft in the general vicinity.

 

[uberhund]

For real believers in Moon Hoax only

Some questions for true Apollo Hoax disciples only:

• 1. I believe your position on the LRO photographs that have imaged the Apollo landing sites is that they are Photoshop fakes, is that correct?
  2. Does the hoax community believe that the space faring nations are motivated to continue to fake evidence and photographs, such as the LRO images, forever?
  3. What is the commonly accepted reason as to what would motivate the space faring nations, especially China and Russia, to continue to promote what you call the Apollo hoax?
  4. Is there a standard of evidence strong enough that would change your minds that Apollo was not hoaxed?

Please. Responses from true believers only, if I may. Just trying to keep up with the latest dialectic. Thanks in advance.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: For real believers in Moon Hoax only

Can't we keep this nonsense to one thread? The only hoax believer still around I think is cosmored. I'd bet they have moon hoax websites if you are looking for answer to those questions.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Yes we can. That's why the pinned topic is there. We will have order

"I'll have a Ham on Rye"

 

[uberhund]

The only hoax believer still around I think is cosmored.

I hope you're right, Yuri. Anyone else out there? I was hoping a believer could cogently net it out for me. I way too lazy to do the Web site search thing. I wouldn't want the sites to show up on my browser history list anyway.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

I will try to find those who believe this is a hoax, and get some answers for your questions. I'll let you know if I find anything out. The responses shouuld be quite hilarious

 

[cosmored]

cosmored wrote:...A perfect example is the flag moving without having been touched.[snip]...You people have the attitude that you've debunked this but that's all it is–an attitude. You haven't come close to debunking this. This piece of evidence proves the hoax by itself.

--------------
Afraid not. Hell, one of the comments posted below the first video nailed it. The movement is electrostatic. Look at the video again - the flag moves towards the astronaut.

This video shows that the flag first moved away from the astronaut and then toward him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

This is consistent with the pressure wave moving ahead of the astronaut pushing the flag away. Then the air moves back toward the astronaut to fill the void caused by his passing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hesLihNFw6A

This anomaly proves the hoax all by itself.

I guess he's not around anymore to answer the qeustion for himself, but did quantum ever say WHY NASA would have faked a moon landing?

The evidence shows that it was faked so this is really somewhat moot but there are plausible scenarios.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------
Several motives have been suggested for the U.S. government to fake the moon landings - some of the recurrent elements are:

1. Distraction - The U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.
2. Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race with the USSR. Going to the Moon, if it was possible, would have been risky and expensive. It would have been much easier to fake the landing, thereby ensuring success.
3. Money - NASA raised approximately 30 billion dollars pretending to go to the moon. This could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity. In variations of this theory, the space industry is characterized as a political economy, much like the military industrial complex, creating fertile ground for its own survival.
4. Risk - The available technology at the time was such that there was a good chance that the landing might fail if genuinely attempted.
-------------------------------------------------

On page 16 of this thread in the 13th post from the top there's a partial summary of hoax evidence.

 

[uberhund]

Thanks, cosmored. So let me recap what I have so far:

1. I believe your position on the LRO photographs that have imaged the Apollo landing sites is that they are Photoshop fakes, is that correct?
Believers respond: pending.

2. Why did the space faring nations cooperate with the hoax in the first place?
Believers respond: The US is paying China and Russia to participate in the hoax with hush funds from NASA.

3. What would motivate the space faring nations, especially China and Russia, to continue to promote the Apollo hoax?
Believers respond: When the hush money runs out, the Chinese and Russians will expose the hoax.

4. Is there a standard of evidence strong enough that would change your minds that Apollo was not hoaxed?
Believers respond: pending

Let me know if I paraphrased you correctly. Also, I'd appreciate any responses now in circulation for items #1 and #4 of which you or other believers might be aware.

 

[MeteorWayne]

cosmored, i.e Mr Youtube

I repeat, do you ever have an original thought of your own? Can you ever respond to a question with posting the same lame youtube videos that have been repeatedly shot down?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Ever notice how the Moon Hoax believers wouldn't be able to do a thing without their disingenuous youtube videos?

 

[uberhund]

Right MeteorWayne. My favorite "absolute, undeniable" proof video showed some guy with a mock up of a spacesuit glove that becomes rock hard when inflated in a vacuum. Proof, he claimed, that the astronauts could not possibly have been able to grasp anything while on the Moon. The problem, of course, was that his mock up was inflated to 14.7lbs of pressure, and the Apollo suits were, as I recall, something like 5lbs of pressure.

You don't see that "absolute, final proof" video anymore now that ISS astronauts are regularly grasping things during EVA with impunity.

But if you want see a hoax believer's eyes glaze over, start mentioning numbers. Youtube videos are easier to follow than actual science.

 

[cosmored]

On page 45 Archer17 said the flag moved because of static electricity. I gave a rebuttal. Now you pro-Apollo people are supposed to give a counter-rebuttal. Do you agree with Archer17? Do you think he's wrong?